like this
YoSoySnekBoi, frustrated_phagocytosis, SuiXi3D, OfCourseNot and NoneOfUrBusiness like this.
They are often just married to the notion that their principals of liberalism are not mutually exclusive with subjecting capital to public ownership.
I personally find dealing with that separate issue goes nowhere real fast with the average person and alienating them isn’t helpful either so I take what I can get.
... the 'temporarily embarassed millionaire' has 'aspirational' capital, in a fanciful, idealized future.
AKA, 'The American Dream'
Its a kind of faith-based magical thinking, delusion.
Which, as George Carlin let us all know, I think over a decade ago now...
... 'you have to be asleep, to believe.'
like this
Dessalines likes this.
It's like Lemmy and Reddit, people want the promise of more content.
In theory Lemmy could be the more active network. What does it take to make that real?
Workers can prefer to live in a capitalist society if they end up with owning more, or just hope so. So they can be capitalist despite not owning capital. Of course that ignores the distinction between the role as capitalist and the believe.
In general, people don't value being in control. If they would, people would have moved to Lemmy.
There is still the opportunity that those who care actively push Lemmy beyond its natural growth to make it competitive with Reddit. But at what cost? Then people would choose Lemmy, but not by conviction.
Similarly, people could stop being capitalists by being able to work in a country with a better offer. But that wouldn't make them anti-capitalist.
I would say only a subset of liberals accept raw Capitalism. Liberals need free markets which is a contradiction with Capitalism.
To have less capitalistic structures, people would have to support something with no immedite benefits. Just waiting for Capitalism's decline is like waiting for Reddit's decline. It's always there but never so much that the majority switches. Something is missing that people act on their own.
Liberalism is the ideological aspect of capitalism. "Raw capitalism" doesn'r really mean anything.
To move onto socialism, we need to overthrow the state, replace it with a socialist one, and establish public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. Countries like China, Vietnam, and Cuba have already done this, as did the former USSR.
For liberalism, see sibling comment.
we need to overthrow the state
Capitalism is making sure that there is not much of a we.
How would socialism prevent power from accumulating? Liberals could probably do the same with capital.
There should be a working class we in capitalism but I don't see it. Why do you think that it exists and that it is not dispersed?
What do you mean “power accumulating?”
People in power tend to grab more power. Like Capitalism would be acceptable if there was a progressive tax on capital. But those with much capital would collude to undermine it. Likewise socialism could also decay if the people in power would use the power to their advantage. How is that mitigated?
“we,” are you asking why we aren’t organized?
Not exactly. I think that there is no 'we' among the working class which prevents the organizing.
People in power don't tend to "grab more power." "Power" is not a metaphysical power that corrupts people, what actually happens is that systems like capitalism reward those that get profit by any means necessary.
Capitalism would not be acceptable even with a progressive tax. The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible, and that all profit a capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Not only this, but capitalism trends towards imperialism and collapse, it's unsustainable. Over time, there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall due to a rise in the ratio of capital to labor as representing the value of a commodity. This is combatted by expansion to raise absolute profits, and by monopoly to raise rates of profit. What this creates is a systemic push towards underdeveloping the global sourh, placing compradors in power, and super-exploiting foreign workers for super profits.
The US Empire is at the helm, but western Europe and strategic allies also benefit and participate in this system. No amount of progressive taxation can fix this, what we need is for humanity to become the master of capital. We need to work towards collectivization of all production and distribution, and orient this towards satisfying the needs of everyone.
I also have no idea what you're hinting at by saying "there's no we."
People in power don’t tend to “grab more power.”
Why do you believe that?
The basic fact is that capitalists want to pay as little as possible while workers want to be paid as much as possible
Same problem in Socialism among workers unless all are paid equally.
capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Capitalists bring the company. There would be no capitalists if workers would create their own companies in sufficcient numbers.
capitalist could make comes from value workers created.
Yes
and collapse, it’s unsustainable. ...
I think that is lore of hope that is wrong. At last there would be one capitalist, owning everything. What should challenge his power if workers are kept placit and divided?
No amount of progressive taxation can fix this
Why? If there would be enough taxation, UBI jobs would pay their worth and profits would shrink. Problem is that Capitalists would oppose this, and still resource allocation by value and not benefit.
humanity to become the master of capital.
That's fine with me.
We need to work towards collectivizationI also have no idea what you’re hinting at by saying “there’s no we.”
Where is the collective that does the collectivization?
Power isn't a supernatural corrupting force, power is a tool, not a need itself. There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.
Socialism works to eradicate class distinctions. Workers wanting more for their labor is fine, but in capitalism it's the capitalists that hold all of the leverage and thus pay workers as little as possible. Capitalists are parasites.
Capitalists do not "bring the company," they own the paper that legally entails them to it. The workers are the ones that run the company, capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint.
If there was a single capitalist owning everything, then there wouldn't be. Capitalism demands competition and circulation of commodities, capitalists depend on that for profit. If it all dies, then capitalism would cease to function and break down, and the ensuing fallout would result in either socialism or barbarism.
As I alluded to above, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall in a finite world results in gradual breakdown of capitalism. Imperialism causes it to stick around for longer, but also prompts revolution in the global south. Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.
As for collectivization, it just sounds like you're asking why we aren't yet organized. Some countries already have organized and successfully established socialism, the rest of us still need to organize.
power is a tool, not a need itself.
Money and Capital is also not a need. Of course, capital is accumulating. But without making good decisions, capital would decay and be overtaken by competitors. Capitalists make good decisions to maintain and increase power. Power is no physical need but a mental one.
There is no tendency for those in power to try to get more.
Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.
Workers wanting more for their labor is fine
How to settle among different classes of workers?
capitalists that hold all of the leverage
Only without UBI. If workers can walk away, they can ask for the value of their work and capitalists could only get the value of their own work.
capitalists are entirely unnecessary from an economic standpoint
If workers would do the business part.
Capitalism demands competition
No, capitalism is all about preventing competition. It's liberal markets that need competition. With competition there are no profits above production costs. The profit of capitalists does not only come from underpaying workers but also from overpaying buyers.
circulation of commodities
Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.
Taxation cannot stop the fundamental problems with sustaining an economy where rates of profit lower over time and competition dies.
If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?
As for collectivization, it just sounds like you’re asking why we aren’t yet organized.
No. The left seems to look at workers and sees lack of organization. But the workers don't see workers, they see apprentices, skilled workers, bosses, management. They see women and men, they see nations and races. There is no joined identity. There is hardly anybody who wants to be organized as a worker.
Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it's a tool. Capitalism selects for those that can best get the most profits, ergo power is useful in achieving those ends. It isn't about making "good" decisions, but profitable ones.
Why do people want to rise in hierarchies? Not for money alone.
This is a cop-out answer. People don't have a natural desire to "rise in hierarchies." If that's the best way to improve your material conditions then people will desire to rise, not for an obsession over power or domination.
How to settle among different classes of workers?
If you mean between the peasantry and proletariat, the answer is to industrialize agriculture and fold everyone into the proletariat gradually (alongside collectivizing production and distribution to erase class). If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
Only without UBI. If workers can walk away, they can ask for the value of their work and capitalists could only get the value of their own work.
Utter fantasy. UBI is just a form of social welfare, but with capitalists in charge of the state UBI will only exist in a manner that benefits capitalists. The state isn't above class struggle, but within it. Further, capitalists do not labor. The day to day management of companies is done by workers, capitalists contribute nothing but the fact that they legally own the tools.
No, capitalism is all about preventing competition. It’s liberal markets that need competition. With competition there are no profits above production costs. The profit of capitalists does not only come from underpaying workers but also from overpaying buyers.
Profit comes from underpaying workers. Profit is made by selling commodities for their value, which is made up of raw materials, tool usage, etc called "constant capital," and for wages, called "variable capital." Constant capital is crystallized prior labor, the profit comes from paying a worker for only a small portion of their labor time, regulated around cost of reproduction of labor (ie, minimum customary living standards). Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit, which is why companies try to seek monopoly, but they also need competition in order to keep circulation of commodities flowing for their own valorization of invested capital.
Capitalism kills itself, it's a contradictory system.
Commodities would still be bought by workers if there is only one capitalist. Earth would be one big mining town.
Think of it this way: If a single capitalist owned everything, then cost of goods collapses. There is no circulation anymore, only planned production and distribution, and absolutely no organized class for protecting said single capitalist. Capitalism would cease to function. Company towns only "worked" because they existed in the context of a grander market that the capitalists could get all that they wanted from.
If somebody owns everything they can command everything. Why would they need profits?
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain under it. That's why I'm saying that this hypothetical is impossible and would collapse immediately, just like anarcho-capitalism. It fundamentally misunderstands how capitalism works.
No. The left seems to look at workers and sees lack of organization. But the workers don’t see workers, they see apprentices, skilled workers, bosses, management. They see women and men, they see nations and races. There is no joined identity. There is hardly anybody who wants to be organized as a worker.
This is a very western viewpoint, and one that is increasingly incorrect. As capitalism decays, class awareness is rising alongside class struggle.
Power is not a mental need nor a physical one, it’s a tool.
Top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is self actualization. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%2…
not for an obsession over power or domination.
Maybe some other reader can chime in? I still believe people seek power, (*if only as a tool for self actualization.)
If you mean between, say, plumbers and engineers, those are the same class.
How should they settle wages?
but with capitalists in charge of the state
UBI in a democracy could be possible.
Further, capitalists do not labor.
That's a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.
Monopoly prices raise the rate of profit,
Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.
The following parts are essentially all the same:
- >Capitalism kills itself, it’s a contradictory system.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
- >no organized class for protecting said single capitalist.
Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.
- >Company towns only “worked” because they existed in the context
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
- >>Why would they need profits?
Because that is the driving basis for capitalism and material gain
Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn't have to collapse.
class awareness is rising alongside class struggle
Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.
Top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is self actualization. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%E…
Per wikipedia the link you gave: Although widely used and researched, the hierarchy of needs has been criticized for its lack of conclusive supporting evidence and its validity remains contested. There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives. Power doesn't foster a thirst for power.
How should they settle wages?
In a socialist economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. Wages are more strongly controlled via the administration, but until we get to a point where we can distribute according to need, we will distribute according to work, including variance for skill, danger, and intensity. See how socialist countries already settle wages.
UBI in a democracy could be possible.
Democracy and capitalism are incompatible. Any social reforms gained by the working classes in the context of an economy dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish. Democracy is only compatible with socialism and communism, for the most part.
That’s a definition thing. They still have to trade and network.
They don't even need to do that, they pay people to do this. No value is created via ownership.
Which means the worker could be paid their full value while the profit comes from the buyer.
Workers are the buyers, except for luxury goods which are targeting capitalists, as well as industrial equipment, etc. Workers cannot be paid the full value of their labor and still have the capitalists profit. Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn't created by ownership, nor by charging monopoly prices.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.
This doesn't follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.
Give some people a nice distinctive hat and there is one.
Administration is not a distinct class, you're trying to conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.
Why is the context important if one owns everything?
Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad, to better paid workers and other capitalists, as well as purchasing goods from outside of the company town. Company towns weren't selling purely to their own workers.
Do the owners care if their control is not called capitalism anymore? Whatever it is, it doesn’t have to collapse.
It has to collapse if it is to remain capitalism, because the idea of a system where a single mega-capitalist owns everything in a closed system is one that has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.
Unless it is reset by war. Capitalists know how to keep workers occupied. There will never be so much pressure that the workers organize. To change things, workers must want it without suffering.
Workers have already successfully established socialism for billions of people, and as capitalism decays the suffering comes with it. Imperialism is collapsing and the rate of profit is falling.
There is no innate human desire for power, just improving our lives.
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
controlled via the administration,dominated by capitalists will inevitably be limited in factor to how the capitalists wish.
Isn't that the same concentration of power?
Your argument is that you can pay people more and charge more, but this is self-defeating again. Value isn’t created by ownership
Only in global communism. The charged workers don't have to be the same as the producing workers.
If it does, the owners can still remain in power and continue the processes without external valorization.This doesn’t follow from capitalism being contradictory and unsustainable in the long run.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
conjure an economy with no circulation of capital yet where everyone will accept the ruler. This is just anarcho-capitalism with extra steps, in that it would collapse immediately.
There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It's like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get's more than everybody else.
Why is the context important if one owns everything?Because capitalists over company towns essentially had semi-slave labor while selling their commodities abroad
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
has no opportunity for profit or gain, and so would immediately collapse into a socialist revolution.
Why is that inevitable?
capitalism decays the suffering comes with it
Why rely on it instead of building a 'we' on its own?
So socialism is only stable if the people, and especially those in power are happy.
That's true of any society, for the most part. Socialist countries do end up doing this much better than peer countries though. Also, in socialism, the working class is in power. Administrative positions exist, but they aren't unaccountable or anything.
Isn’t that the same concentration of power?
Not at all. Collectivization of production and distribution into one democratically run system does naturally follow from the groundwork paved by late stage capitalism, yes, but this collectivization also brings with it democratization of power.
Only in global communism. The charged workers don’t have to be the same as the producing workers.
I don't see how this relates to communism, moreover the working class as a whole is the class that produces and consumes. The company towns only worked somewhat because the commodities they produced were sold outside, making everything a company town wouldn't work.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.
Still don't see your point.
There can be circulation. People earn wages and buy commodities. It’s like socialism, just people get less because the capitalist get’s more than everybody else.
Not at all. Buying goods with money earned isn't the same as circulation of capital. Capital transmogrifies from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism, and prices collapse. This "mega-capitalist" would be overthrown instantly and socialism or barbarism would take its place.
If all resources are available there is no need to sell abroad, or to buy fron there.
There is for profit. You're trying to create a weird utopian mega-capitalism that would, the instant it existed, collapse into socialism or barbarism.
Why is that inevitable?
A single person can't actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly. This is the same kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
Why rely on it instead of building a ‘we’ on its own?
We don't, we rely on organizing. Capitalism's decay speeds up that process.
I know. It could be futile to wait for the collapse.Still don’t see your point.
I don't understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.
A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.
from money to productive commodities to produced commodities back into money in a grand expanding circuit, but without such a system you no longer have capitalism
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitali…
The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
and prices collapse.
The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don't have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.
This “mega-capitalist” would be overthrown instantly
Why? Give people entertainment and hope and fear and they will just keep working.
A single person can’t actually own the entire economy. They would be ousted instantly.
Make it a hundred.
kind of utopian thinking that powers anarcho-capitalists.
In which way? Wiki couldn't help me.
We don’t, we rely on organizing. Capitalism’s decay speeds up that process.
Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.
I don’t understand why concentration onto a single capitalist or a small group should destabilize the system.A hunter gatherer tribe can live by itself. The world run by a capitalist could as well.
You're confusing the ability for non-capitalist systems to function without circulation of commodities as their basis with the ability for capitalism to do so. Capitalism functions by this, it's how capital is valorized.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitali…The single capitalist would still own the means of production.
A "capitalist" system where you have a single person that owns everything is both structurally impossible (similar to anarcho-capitalism) and also not capitalism. You've gone beyond the relations of bourgeois and proletarians into a system owned by a single autocrat, which would immediately cease. Capital isn't circulating, and it isn't being valorized, and this one person could not possibly get everyone to go along with treating them as god-emperor.
These kinds of hypotheticals will never come to pass, and thus it's pointless to discuss beyond entertainment value.
The capitalist could buy everything for a penny. But they don’t have to. They own everything and can pay workers the wages for the workers to survive. But then the capitalist sells the goods for them at the stores at the prices that reflect the effort to produce them if the capitalist wants efficency, or any other price depending on the goals.
Market efficiency doesn't exist here, there isn't a market for labor. It's one capitalist. Prices don't come from thin-air, and the capitalist has no use for money because they own literally everything. Systems of accounting would not work here.
Make it a hundred.
A hundred competing mega-capitalists would still be close to collapse, but could feasibly exist. They would compete and actually be able to valorize their capital, the way capitalists exploit workers today.
In which way? Wiki couldn’t help me.
Simply imagining a society doesn't mean it can actually exist. Anarcho-capitalism can't exist because the state is what legitimizes property relations. Same with your example, both would fall apart into something new.
Decay lets some people suffer. Coupled with wars and fascism the system can still be stable. There must be something in humans that makes them want to cooperate. Organized suffering people alone will disperse when the suffering is over.
Humans naturally do cooperate, and we've seen workers organize to establish socialism. Further, fascism doesn't really stabilize anything, and neither does war, it only temporarily buys time while accelerating revolutionary fervor.
Liberalism requires individual freedom, including free markets. Capitalism ends with monopolies that destroy free markets.
It is not the same. Liberal societies must want regulated markets.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
People will post this as if tribal conflicts over land and resources just didn't exist during that time period.
The truth is that people have always been shitty.
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
There is a major difference between conquering people and claiming the places they reside as part of empire versus drawing lines on a map and claiming to legally own the land itself.
When the Romans were conquering their empire in Europe, they weren't claiming land and claiming that those who resided on that land were now subject to the Roman Empire. This is however literally what Spain did during the Reconquista and what the conquistadors did in the Americas afterward. It's also how these thigs tend to go today.
The Romans, like the Aztecs, conquered groups of people and forced them to be subjects. The land they were on was less important than the people themselves being subjugated to the hegemon. If a subject city's population decided to abandon it and establish their city elsewhere within Rome's martial reach, the Romans would keep the people rather than the useless unoccupied land.
Feudal estates and fiefdoms are a kind of proto land ownership but even this was distinct to how we would consider it today. Claims were much more vague and impossible to enforce without the cartography tools we have now. Again, they were claiming ownership of the nation as a people, not a nation defined by borders and acreage.
Of course there was plenty of disagreement as to which hegemon runs which settlement. The disagreement was not that two governments had a legal claim to the same piece of defined land, but things like "God chose me to rule whatever I can reach, and I can reach you" or simply "I can beat you in war, so these people are mine."
People "owned" their homes and used whatever land around it to farm, but not as in they had a legal claim to the whole piece of property and a franchise to do with that landed property as they pleased. They owned it because they resided there and could keep up what they were using. Wealthier people had more people to manage more territory in their behalf, but even this was more about the subjects than the land they lived on, which was understood to be incidental compared to how we would see it today. Unoccupied, unused land miles away from where anyone lived was not being fought over. Wherever they lived domination of people was fought for.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Capitalism isn't about conflicts over land and resources though? It's about the exploitation of a majority of workers by a minority class of capitalist owners.
In order to solve "tribal conflicts over land and resources" you need to eliminate the concept of tribes altogether, or their modern equivalent, nations/states. That's why most communists happen to be globalists too, as in "world communism is the goal".
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Don't forget that there's a difference between anatomically modern humans and behaviorally modern humans. It's debated when the modern behavior began, but it is sometimes thought to be as recent as 40k years ago.
Still a long time, just not quite as long as 300k years.
like this
Dessalines likes this.
How dare Ukraine fight back!
What is this pro Russia bullshit. Russia is a piece of shit country that needs to be smacked down.
How to get a specific udemy course for free?
https://t.me/Udemy_Courses_Free_Daily
maybe
try looking for telegram channels, there's some that share courses, but what they share varies
Udemy Courses Daily Free
🔥 Biggest Udemy Course's Channel Of India 🔥 ☄️You Can Learn Programming, Video Editing, Graphic Designing, Hacking And Many ☄️You Can Get All Udemy Courses In Free Of Cost ✅ For Paid Promotion Contact @Slatt_xDTelegram
Health officials in Ottawa say three children have died this month from flu-related illness as cases surge in the region earlier than is typical.
Not when parents are using Facebook for advice. To give you an idea of how ignorant this province is, only 28% get a free vaccine for children, and only 37% of children with chronic illness where flu could kill them.
Florida ain't got nuthin on Ontario.
You can vaccinate children.
Ofc you can. I was responding to the snark from velindora, not saying that kids can't be vaxxed.
...Only if they guess the correct strains
No guessing is involved. They base the Northern vax on the prevalent strains from the Southern hemisphere (and vice versa). Unfortunately a nasty varient started making the rounds shortly after the Northern vax was in production.
Says who? a fucking journalism grad at CBC?
Even in worst matched seasons, there is protection. But, we encourage people to walk around sick without masks and not even wash their hands after going to the toilet any more. We used to teach hygiene in schools, we even had a U of T school of hygiene we shut down.
In what world? How about the real world?
cdc.gov/clean-hands/data-resea…
19% even "wash", but 1 in 20 properly wash.
Historically, parents only vaccinate kids in Ontario at about 28% -you think these shit 72% parents are teaching how to properly wash hands?
This is not teaching them to wash. It's not teaching them NOT to.
One implies omission of responsibility, the other implies a more sinister agenda. There is a difference.
For what it is worth I generally agree that we are not being responsible in how we educate....welll...anyone.
However, I do not think there is a cadre of humans pushing an anti-washing agenda because hygiene is too woke, though I fully acknowledge that the potential for something as stupid as this to be become real is high.
Why are you yelling at CBC journalists? They make this very clear in this very article:
The latest available vaccine effectiveness estimates show the current shot is up to 75 per cent effective at preventing hospital visits in children aged two to 17 years, and 30 to 40 per cent effective in adults, said the WHO.
In best matched years, the efficacy is about 60%, this year, it will be about 40%.
The problem is all the lessons of hygeine and masking from 2020-2022 are gone, mostly driven by teachers who refuse to mask but have ALL been out >1 week with flu at my kid's high school.
Ontario is cold Florida. We approach public health with denial now.
Why do firgirl repacks require admin to run?
So, I've noticed this more as I've gotten deeper into piracy, but why do all the various programs installed through a fitgirl repack require administrator, even if they're installed for the user?\
I may be dumb but it just always makes me a bit worried.
Edit: I do not mean the installation process, I'm talking about running the process once installed.
like this
Auster and Lasslinthar like this.
Games often write to Program Files, system-wide redistributables, or shared folders. VC++ runtimes, DirectX, .NET, PhysX installers all require admin.
Repack scripts are usually written to “just work” everywhere, so they have the stuff mentioned above built in. Or maybe fitgirl is just lazy and asks for admin even if it is not strictly needed.
There is definitely a risk of malware etc. when pirating, so you are not dumb to be wary.
Ideally you'd install the game in a VM first and run some virus/malware check on the whole VM afterwards.
If you're using Windows and there's critical stuff on your system, you should be worried about security because of Windows itself, regardless of fitgirl repacks.
I can't answer for sure, but admin privileges could have something to do with:
- Maybe overriding DRM functionality
- Maybe overriding limitations on what system resources can be accessed/controlled without the right developer's signature (so the game can go fullscreen, change resolution settings, etc)
- Maybe stealing your data or reporting you for piracy, especially if the authorities or AI malware or something had recently compromised the "fitgirl repacks" identity before the repack was released - can reduce risk by setting a minimum time e.g. 2 years before you'll use a torrent, or only installing on air-gapped systems or something
I'm not sure, but this has me wondering how this works in Proton. I've installed plenty of fitgirl repacks through proton which worked very well.
Looks like Wine just acts like UAC is enabled and allowed, but still runs with the same privileges: gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/…
As of Wine 9.4, Wine programs run as a limited user by default, but will automatically and silently elevate themselves if necessary (in the same situations that Windows would spawn a UAC prompt), at which point they will report administrator privileges while still running as the same Unix user.
like this
Stardust475 likes this.
Some installers write to the protected "Program Files" or "Program Files (x86)" folders. These are special folders requiring elevated permissions. (This is why a lot of modern programs install to your user folder or AppData instead).
Unfortunately, these same permissions also allow writing to OS files. It's good to be wary. You may be interested in a Sandbox program (I use Sandboxie). Someone else here can tell me if this is unnecessary or not useful in general.
What's the performance hit for sandboxie?
I know it's not ideal, but I mainly use an old airgapped/no internet pc to running older/less demanding games. Obviously there's a risk that the system becomes corrupted and infects the usb stick I use for file transfer, but that's the gamble I'm taking right now.
If anyone reading this thinks it's super risky, don't hesitate to let me know. I'm kinda assuming that most malware/harvesters/miners/viruses will want to connect to the internet, and not go the usb route. Seems like it'd be too much of a hassle, unless you want to take down a nuclear program.
I used to use steam for some stuff, but everything's so expensive and I'm tired of all the forced updates and always on requirements, so I honestly can't be bothered and torrent as much as possible. Only buying from GOG now, so I can at least share games with the household. Fuck 1 person licenses.
Installing apps in Windows is a privileged process. This keeps the average user from corrupting a system.
The only users that can install apps are ones with Install Apps permission (I forget what it's actually called). Anyone in the Admin group has this. The group Users does not.
In a business/domain environment, very few people get local admin rights. For a home user best practice would be to run as a User or at most Power User, and only do admin level stuff when logged in as an Admin.
No one does this, of course. (I certainly don't, even though I know better. It's just easier to not do risky things and maintain backups).
So close yet so far. Why must hardware support be so weird?
TwT
like this
Auster likes this.
support is expensive and a lot of hardware companies operate on razor thin margins.
either that or their c-levels of the hardware companies want to maximize profits.
Ask Nvidia; their software is literally created and tested on Linux but won't release it for Linux. Lol
And the reason why they don't is that they're scared of losing profit somehow
I was thinking something on those lines the other day. We like to say that Linux revives old computers, and I wouldn't for a second consider putting Windows back on them, but I also have a case of hardware support so close, yet so far. I've two old laptops with nvidia chips from before the days of Optimus switiching, so you are forced to use the dGPU. Believe me, I wasted a whole weekend trying to make them use only integrated graphics. It was fine while they were supported under the proprietary nvidia driver, but as soon as support ended, nouveau became the only option and it absolutely crippled 3D performance, even on very old titles. Meanwhile, Windows still supports the old 340 driver needed for those graphics chips.
Mostly comes down to hardware vendors not bothering with Linux support and open-source in general. Which leaves support for affected devices down to volunteers having time to reverse-engineer a driver from scratch. To be clear, I don't blame nouveau at all. It must have been a ton of work to even get the nouveau driver to its current state.
The Worst Thing About the RAM Shortage That Nobody’s Talking About
The Worst Thing About the RAM Shortage That Nobody’s Talking About
No matter what, consumers are going to lose.Kyle Barr (Gizmodo)
::: alt text because i dont know how to add that in a comment
(grimace sits in a deck chair on a boat in the frankly nightmarish klasky csupo ronald mcdonald adventures cartoon in which the mcdonaldland residents become kinky pirates, that itself aired in a tv show that viciously ripped off its entire concept and format from Peewee's Playhouse during the time in which Paul Reubens himself was being ostracized from public life for being a gay man. they even got mark mothersbaugh, who did the music both for Rugrats and the playhouse itself, to write the score. (satire becomes reality, spud boy?) anyway i edited the screenshot so grimace is confidently saying "burgwer Z" while captain ronald mcjack fucking sparrow and his talking dog who looks and sounds like The Gromble from aaahh real monsters look on in horror.)
:::
Americans pronouncing bourgeoisie (bor djwa zee) : burgerzee
![alt text goes here] (https://example.com/image.jpg)
Careful there, might attract more extremist xenophobes there, same vocabulary and all...
Which is why I prefer rich assholes, billionaire idiots or people who rather prefer to destroy earth then share it.
"Corpos".
Or, to use William Gibson's more current vernacular:
"Klepts".
EDIT:
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
Bodø · Bodø
Mit Google Maps lokale Anbieter suchen, Karten anzeigen und Routenpläne abrufen.Bodø · Bodø
"Hey, Uwe, how the shwarzschwanz to you spell 'boodgy'?!"
-- Karl Marx, probably
Mon français était bon... il y a 20? 15? ans. Aujourd'hui, me souviens pas merde.
Trying to use French to guess how to spell it and I end with "bourgoisie". Because then PT/IT start interfering and the word has /g/ in both, not /dʒ/ or /ʒ/. At least they force me to remember the "r", since I don't use it in English (non-rhotic accent).
The borgys...
Don't at me, you know I'm right. We need to defrenchify to reenrichify the Inglish languadj... goddang it.
Haves and not haves
Workers vs owners
Trust fund babies
Billionaires
Wealth hoarders
Today’s language actually has lots of options
Dragons are extremely cool magical fantasy creatures
Rich fucks are extremely real and cool as rotten dog shit
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.www.youtube.com
Is this where 'bougie' came from?
Because most people can't spell the OG version?
Nice to see a fellow leftist revolutionary against [list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence]" was unreal.
They really are so close to getting it, but then use flatearther style thinking to back flip into doubling down on capitalism.
You've heard of doublethink, and doublespeak...
But what about antithink, and antispeak?
"You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything!"
"Psycho Killer... qu'est que c'est?"
"Universal healthcare? I don't wanna be forced to have healthcare or pay for someone else's healthcare."
Real argument I had with a moron.
They may indeed be stupid, but I don't strictly disagree with them. I think any intelligent person would want to contribute to such a system. But ideally shouldn't be forced.
Forcing these people is part of the reason we can't have nice things. They should be free to struggle and suffer to their hearts desire. Largely cut off and excluded from society according to their wishes. That will be the only way we will ever get such a system. And the only way they will learn the value of it.
It's going to and to some extent already is starting in places like California. Towns and States should work to take care of their own. As well as like minded neighbors. Those places will continue to grow and flourish. And places that don't, will suffer, wither, and die. And that's okay. We shouldn't be subsidizing bad behavior through force. They need consequences to their behavior.
I think any intelligent person would want to contribute to such a system. But ideally shouldn't be forced.
I think it's a matter of education, not (just) intelligence: If you understand how insurance and social security and all that work (and you trust the ones administering the funds do so fairly and faithfully), then you'll probably be willing to pay for peace of mind. Intelligent people can still make mistakes or underestimate risk, so I wouldn't trust them to arrive at that conclusion on their own, but they'll probably understand the reasoning more easily than others. Conversely, I think less intelligent people can understand it as well, though they may require a different or more personal approach for explanation.
They should be free to struggle and suffer to their hearts desire
That doesn't really make sense if they live in the same communities. If there's universal healthcare but it's opt-in, there will be people who opt out. Those same people will catch viruses and other diseases, not be able to go to the doctor, then show up on the same subways and airplanes as the people who take care of themselves. This means the uninsured become disease vectors.
That's why you as a society isolate and exclude them. Peer pressure is a powerful thing. More powerful in a general sense than the law often times.
Not gonna vaccinate your child? Then they are going to be put in special classes with other unvaccinated. They'll love that. Going to a restaurant, vaccinated or unvaccinated seating? Oh, what, you don't want to sit out on the patio in the snow? Then just show us proof of vaccination. Subway? Back to the unvaccinated car. Etc. At the doctors office? Oh yes, the unvaccinated waiting room is outside. They'll learn.
Then they are going to be put in special classes with other unvaccinated
In the same school? That's not going to achieve much.
Going to a restaurant, vaccinated or unvaccinated seating?
Will that work as well as a "smoking section" and a "non-smoking section" in a restaurant? We tried that, it didn't work.
I understand where you're coming from, wanting them to struggle and suffer under the system they want. The problem is, I've never met a poor libertarian so they wouldn't be the ones hurt by such a system. They are almost always born into (at least modest) wealth or privilege or if they have benefited from help from others or govt incentives/programs, want to pull the ladder up behind them to reduce the cost on them regardless of the impact on the rest of society.
I couldn't support a system that punishes them because that's pretty crappy but also, that same system would punish many others too.
That's because most of the ones you've met are big L Libertarian. Not actually libertarian, but capitalist cosplaying as libertarian.
You can't have flat, granular, answerable government. Without business being similarly structured. Otherwise the business became the oppressive government.
No most right libertarians know that their political ideology means that they don't make decisions for anyone. They think the market should make those decisions.
They're just fucking stupid because they think that won't devolve into one megamonopoly that holds all the power to enslave them.
Also could be
My knowlede of economics is basic, and my political knowledge is based on the myth that the right only contains good things.
So, yeah, they are indeed very silly.
But I still insist we're better off allying with those silly gooses, than the tankies.
Maybe together we can come up with an economically balanced freedom.
Sounds better than big brother pretending to be more equal than others.
(Cue the downvotes from the authoritarian left! LOL)
This is the game plan.
Oil companies sell off assets all the time. Or they'll split off poor performers to a failing company, who will then go bankrupt and leave all the unattended well-heads, and tax-payers to foot the bill.
It's in plain sight. It's encouraged by capatalism. It's simply not going to stop under the current government, voted in by the people who work that land, and paid for by the people who live in the cities.
According to the Unpaid Oil and Gas Property Tax Survey conducted by the province in 2022, a cumulative $220 million in unpaid taxes has been reported by municipalities, with $130 million in tax arrears and the remaining $90 million in cancellations. About $76 million is owed by companies that are still operating, and that money is potentially recoverable, possibly through repayment agreements.The Rural Municipalities of Alberta told CBC News there is now about $253 million in unpaid taxes reported provincewide.
As long as Hellberta continues to operate their O&G governance with a provincial open-wallet mandate, nothing will change.
This has been happening my entire life, and still nothing has been done to prevent it.
The closest is the orphan well fund, which is comically underfunded can't do 10% of what is expected of it.
Alberta passing the bill for orphan well cleanup to the public: new report
A new report warns Alberta has not properly confronted the massive environmental and financial liabilities left behind by energy development.Timm Bruch (CTVNews)
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
"Kids on the beat, beat kids!"
Been a while since I heard that one lol
like this
NoneOfUrBusiness likes this.
The best part of wunder showzen was global politics in 30 seconds.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf-xePlM…
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.m.youtube.com
Like we have a choice with society. I love calling peers bootlickers because they are trying to survive and possibly having more success than you.
Hate the game not the player. What's the economic equivalent of an incel?
See and I disagree. Musk is a piece of shit yes but he's merely playing the game better for a large variety of reasons.
My point being, the game is not the problem. The problem is assholes. This happens in capitalism. It happens in communism. It happens everywhere. The problem is not the system the problem is assholes.
Adam Smith would be rolling in his grave if he saw what became of capitalism.
That's a rather poor attempt at unironically moralising someone's lack of morals. I or anyone else could simply declare anything to be "the game" and justify any action through that. Can you not see?
Communism has never actually existed. What we've had is fascism with red trim and American propaganda, used to justify their empire and imperial wars.
Capitalism is working exactly as intended. It's the asset rich, self entitled, slaver/coloniser and workshy attitude of the European aristocracy, expressed in economic form. There's a reason they dont teach the actual origin of capitalism in school (because to teach it is to critique capitalism and critiquing capitalism is illegal in our western schools) and have to tell a fairytale instead. The idea that a truly free and fair market could ever exist is more utopian than anything you'll ever hear from any socialist.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology emphasizing extreme nationalism, a strong central state, militarism, and the subordination of individual rights to the nation's perceived unity and strength, often led by a dictator. It emerged in early 20th-century Europe.
Sorry that you can't make communism and fascism interchangeable.
It just described what they had in the soviet union though....
Can you name the differences or is it just that it "feels kinda commie" to you?
Yes it was, learn what communism is. You can't just label things you don't like as communism.
Don't just declare it to be different, grow a spine and demonstrate the difference as you were asked or do one.
Yes it was, learn what communism is. You can’t just label things you don’t like as communism.
I am a communist, dumbass
Then you have no excuse for thinking the USSR was actually communist, you utter moron. As if you thought that made it better.
Hang on, let me guess, the tiananmen square massacre didn't happen too right? We have a name for fake communists like you.
Then you have no excuse for thinking the USSR was actually communist, you utter moron.
I never said they were, you dishonest fuck
At what point was I defending the system? I make damn good money playing the game and I do my best to lift those around me.
But the system is rigged and I have neither the time or capacity to fix it just like everyone else. It will have to get a lot worse before it gets better.
But to think that you can just airdrop into a different system and not participate in the on youre in? I stand by what I said. Fincel. There i coined the term.
Why are you shadowboxing comments?Nobody said to reject the system or even to try and fix it. Nobody said to go live at a bus stop. I don't know why you think that's what we're saying or if you're hot off another convo and getting things mixed up but it's just not at all what we're saying.
Again, you can accept that capitalism is the system we have without saying it's the best system ever and you love it. You can get kidnapped without developing stockholm syndrome.
By OP I meant whoisearth. It’s seemed to me that the person to reply to them in this thread was saying they were simping and that’s what confused me.
Still not sure why they replied that if they were talking about the meme guy instead.
I replied further down but I'll do it here. I'm not saying go live in the woods to escape or anything like that.
You can accept that you are just a cog in the capitalist machine without simping for the very machine that's crushing you.
I'm not sure how people are getting something else from what I wrote. I thought I was pretty clear. You can accept that you've been kidnapped without developing stockholm syndrome.
Not sure why the downvotes and comments.
Like if we don’t participate in the capitalist system what should we do?
Every motherfucker on here is part of that system unless they build their own phones or PC. Where is Lemmy hosted? More likely on AWS or some other cloud provider.
Where do you buy things from if not capitalist businesses.
The downvotes are from a misunderstanding. I didn't say to reject capitalism or go live in the woods to escape it or anything like that.
I'm saying you can accept that you are nothing but a cog in the capitalist machine without simping for the very machine that's crushing you.
People seem to be reading what they want to read in these comments.
I don’t see how the comment you replied to is simping for capitalism though.
I do tend to miss meaning in text so maybe I just don’t see it.
Those best in what we have been talking about the whole time lol. Right now those are capitalist countries. I bet socialism is great and gets better and better but it's just not at the top yet in this. Unless there's a better example than China ofc.
You are saying that socialism is better at this particular aspect but all I'm saying the best in it are still capitalist.
No, you pivoted the conversation to that direction. Originally we were talking about capitalist and socialist countries, and how socialist countries take better care of their working classes than capitalist countries. I gave good examples of this, but then you decided to erase context and try to compare "the best" with "the best." This is a terrible idea for reasons I've already explained, doing so erases historical context, geographic differences, geopolitical tensions, and historical trends.
The only capitalist countries that have it better than China are the Nordic countries, and that's only in some ways, not all. Further, the Nordic countries have been developed for longer, are imperialist and thus use the spoils of imperialism for their safety nets, and have not been targetted by other countries. To compare the quality of life for a worker in China vs a worker in the Nordics without taking those factors into consideration tells us nothing about the effectiveness of capitalism and socialism for the working classes.
I'm just saying it doesn't seem like you need socialism to achieve better result in what we're discussing. You can do it within capitalism and as it stands some capitalist countries are doing even better than the best of socialist countries.
And funny to speak about China as some new civilization with little time to develop, especially compared to Finland for example. But it's whatever, if that feels like the answer to you then I'm fine with it. I just thought China was a poor example since rural people only got welfare in 2014 onward and whatnot.
I'm sure there's other, out of scope things where they're amazing.
If your safety nets are funded through underdeveloping the global south and stealing from it, and these same safety nets are eroding rather than strengthening, then it isn't a legitimate comparison in the slightest. You keep ignoring imperialism when I bring it up, and that's akin to saying that you can have a good quality of life in capitalism by being a capitalist.
The PRC was founded in the middle of the 20th century. Prior to its existence, China had been colonized by Britain and later Japan, and was kept as a semi-feudal backwater. The great states of China of the past had all but decayed into a shadow of their former selves through the century of humiliation. China did not truly begin its era of rapid development until it became socialist. The Nordics were beneficiaries of imperialism even prior to the founding of the PRC.
You've erased the scope and are trying to compare static snapshots rather than trajectories and systems. This erasure of context is the kind of vulgar materialism of pre-evolutionary biology that saw each animal as permanent and fixed, unchanging, rather than interrelated and constantly changing.
I mean we can't really talk about future without it being just speculation, so right now is furthest we can go with actual numbers. Like said, theoretically China will be the best at some point but until then...
Finland got their independence in 1917, before that it was a colony and under foreign and imperialist rule. Finland went through a civil war and WW2 too. I wouldn't call Finland old compared to the millennia spanning civilization that is China lol. Finns were sleeping in caves when China was already an empire conquering shit.
We can absolutely analyze historic trends to see where countries are heading, and to refuse to do so is again the same type of vulgar materialism that pre-evolutionary biologists were guilty of. History is not a series of static snapshots.
Finland in particular was largely agrarian in the beginning of the 20th century, but had become entrenched within the imperialist core by the time the PRC was founded, and was still more developed than China at the time of the PRC's founding.
I have no idea why you keep dodging the imperialism point and acting like it doesn't exist, that should disqualify a country from being included. If your cushier lifestyle is dependent on the immiseration of foreign countries then that isn't a meaningful way to tell if capitalism works as a better system. Further, safety nets in Finland and the Nordics in general are eroding as imperialism is faltering. China isn't imperialist, its gains come from its own working classes and not foreign plunder.
*completely normal socially progressive post*
the worst liberal you've ever met: "errrm this seems a little sus 👀🤓"
You said according theories you believe in that socialist countries will be best of the best and so on. I'm not concerned about the future and don't really trust these sort of predictions, so what else can even say really. I wanted to be nice and agree that yeah maybe at some point.
I'm just not very interested in speculation, that's all
I said that socialist countries are better at providing for the working class now. This statement requires isolating variables and taking differences into account when making a comparison, not looking at static and arbitrary comparisons. Further, the decay in imperialist countries and the rise of socialist countries are already ongoing, not processes for the future. You've been explained this before and haven't responded to it, or justified why your arbitrary comparison is better than comparing peer countries and trajectories.
Same goes with not giving a clear answer on geographical shifts, evolution, and imperialism. Your static snapshot method is wrong.
I think you know how I feel about speculation about the future. And being a billionaire would be a great system, though they seem to exist in both system we talked about, since there's billionaires in socialist countries and capitalist ones.
Maybe your theory about billionaires being the ultimate winner is on to something.
Replying here because we reached the max comment depth.
If you cut the Nordics off of their imperialism, they would not be able to have these same safety nets. The people doing the bulk of the labor for the Nordic safety nets do not get access to them. China does run its safety nets from its own labor. You're taking a selectively blind approach that apologizes for imperialism.
I think the max comment limit was the hint that it might be time to stop hah. If you do this or that, eh. But situation is what it is right now and it was countries that we compared.
I don't think there's anything that interesting coming out of this tbh
OP is not American and this post is not about America specifically. How would they specifically know about a tweet 9 years ago?
Regardless, OP is an anarchist. Even if the metaphor is the same in both, i'm pretty confident this is a coincidence.
Life is good. Life isn't about getting more of what you want. Its about wanting more of what you have.
Start a gratitude journal and rework your brain.
don't like this
Dessalines doesn't like this.
People dont realise there are other ways of doing things and think the alternative is just soviet communism.
Liberal capitalism has only been defacto since the 80s/90s and it only benefits the 1%. They dont want the gravy train to stop so are working very hard to keep the masses stupid and compliant.
Sure, I've explored a bunch of other ways. I wound up agreeing that communism is the correct path, guided by Marxism-Leninism, which has various forms in real life such as the former USSR, Cuba, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos.
Capitalism has been in power a lot linger than 30-40 years.
USSR, Cuba, PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos
Its interesting you've picked those as examples when most of them have failed. PRC/Vietnam aren't exactly Marxist-leninist these days.
Capitalism has been in power a lot linger than 30-40 years
Well an ideology can't really hold 'power' but you're sort of correct. The reagan-thatcher flavour of capitalism gained popularity in the 80s.
The only one to have "failed" is the USSR. Cuba, the PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, and Laos are all still here today, and all are still socialist. China and Vietnam are absolutely Marxist-Leninist still, not sure what you mean by saying they aren't.
As for Reagan/Thatcher style neoliberalism, that isn't something brand new but a further evolution of existing capitalism and liberalism. There's no such thing as a static, unchanging system, nor one disconnected from its roots.
Liberal capitalism has only been defacto since the 80s/90s
????
I do not understand where you people get these insane ideas
I do not understand where you people get these insane ideas
Not sure what you're on about mate?
You can't even defend the system based on It's own merit. You can only declare other, select systems, to be worse. Try and defend capitalism on it's own merit. Dont claim things from the passage of time or things that could easily have happened under any economic system like "medicine existing."
Yes, the death there was represented by the wage theft of the ruling capitalist oligarchs.
Of course, the only options are to be ruled over by capitalist oligarchs or be in a slave state/no technology or literal kings instead of metaphorical ones. Nice one!
I might have a larger percent of the overall Total money but that doesn’t matter if money stops mattering
You pretending to be a billionaire? Also, I'm not sure the argument you're making because it seems to argue my point better than it does yours.
Is it though?
The 70% roll is a one time at birth and you still live.
The average piece of candy is ~60 calories. But let's call it a 100 and since the average adult needs 1600 kcal on average - you've got a ~16% chance of just dropping dead everyday.
After 7 Days, the chance of you still being alive is 29.5%. 30 Days is 0.54%
I mean you could always go live in the woods?
Choose a life of crime?
Be homeless and save enough to travel somewhere and never leave.
Smartwatch - OS and Watch recommendations welcome!
Initially, I looked for an open source smartwatch that is sold with an opensource OS preinstalled. However, this was not really feasible.
- PineTime had some really bad first hand reviews in addition to them being quite expensive in the EU.
- Pebbles warranty is too low and it is rather expensive.
So as a second attempt I looked for operating systems that you can flash onto watches. I found Open-SmartWatch with OSW-OS and AsteroidOS. While I think that building your smart watch from scratch is cool, AsteroidOS looked more accessible and mature (just based on easy navigation and the feature list).
Sadly, the most supported watch is no longer available: TicWatch Pro 2018
So I thought I just mindlessly ask whether you have a different OS you would recommend or if you have a watch recommendation that is still available.
There are two versions of the bangle.js watch. The second version looks pretty similar to the pinetime.
I used to use the pinetime for a while and now have the bangle.js 2 watch.
Pinetime is cheaper in DE than the bangle.js (40€ vs 90€ IIRC).
Both are nice watches and integrate well with gadgetbridge and have a couple of weeks battery. Which is much more then what you get from a Android watch.
Most people won't agree with this but... Amazfit. About as closed as you can get. It has (depending on the model) about as many features as you might want. Mine, the GTR4, is circular and gives a decent watch effect with a dark watch face and a leather strap. It has GPS, can pair directly to Bluetooth earphones and has some internal storage you can use to upload your music so you can use it offline. No SIM/eSIM though.
Back to the closed part: You only need to install their app and pair it to theirs during the initial setup, once. Following Gadgetbridge's clear instructions, you can then get the login token, pair with gadgetbridge instead and just uninstall the official app. It then becomes your trustworthy watch that never sends any data out, because it no longer uses the official app. Not just amazfit though, I'd suggest to go to their supported devices list (which is... Comprehensive by now), and carefully check if a device you are interested in is supported and to what degree. Gadgetbridge might look ugly but it's 100% reliable and privacy friendly.
Used Pebble is one option.
If you can handle soldering in a battery, you can usually buy a Pebble or Pebble Steel for really cheap (just make sure it isn't a first batch glued shut model). Don't get a Round, batteries are really hard to find. Pebble 2 and Pebble 2 Duo will also need replacement side buttons, they disintegrate quickly.
Obviously they will have zero days of warranty though :p
I think the PineTime is nice enough, for being relatively new, surprisingly cheap, and fully open source.
It doesn't have all of the features of a $300 watch, but it doesn't cost as much either.
Microsoft Edge Pushes an "All in One Browser" Message on Chrome’s Download Page
Microsoft is trying a new way to stop users from downloading Google Chrome. If you open the Chrome download page in Microsoft Edge, you may see a new banner at the top. This version looks different from the usual prompts that ask users to stay with Edge.
I'm curious, what if I download Firefox from Edge? 🤔
Microsoft Edge Turns Chrome’s Download Page Into a Security Pitch
Microsoft Edge now shows a security-focused banner on Google Chrome’s download page. It highlights built-in safety features and links to Microsoft’s Online Safety page.Venkat (WindowsReport)
diffaldo
in reply to cm0002 • • •